Welcome to the 21st Century Agora! I am excited to start exploring ideas with you, and I look forward to getting to know all of you. The question is, how should I do that? Should I use the same methods by which I have come to know that a classic Mustang is smokin' hot? Should I use the methods I employed as I came to know that the Latin verb portare means "to carry?" Do team mates come to know each other using the same methods by which a parent comes to know a child, a child comes to know a parent, or spouses come to know each other?
How, then, I am to know you?
Oh, and what methods will you use to know me?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I would have to say that both parties should just carefully observe eachother and form their totally unbiased opinions and go from there.
Rigs- Our world view is completely subjective. As humans, I don't believe we can live without bias.
Magister P- Go for the "Mustang approach." That's what I use.
Taking into account that the IB curriculum is completely distinct from all other areas in which you may have encountered the students, (for example: other classes, daily routines), I would consider "tabula rasa" as an ideal way to begin getting to know everyone.
I think Rachel's probably right,
Bjorn...okay, that needs some clarification. What is the "Mustang approach?"
As for observation, what should we observe about each other...how we dress, how we act, what we say, how we style our hair? And are you...am I...the same person in Period 10 TOK that you are/I am elsewhere? If not, then how can observation of each other in Period 10 lead to true knowing of the other person?
eli.... I was obviously being sarcastic when saying that our opinions are unbiased.
and rach- agreed
"Should I use the same methods by which I have come to know that a classic Mustang is smokin' hot? "
That one.
On a more serious note, is it true that we can have "true knowing" of anyone, especially another person? It seems like everyone has a good deal going on under the hood, so to speak, so as to make any amount of interaction, especially from a subjective viewpoint, not quite enough to gain "true knowledge."
This brings up the question: how do we, collectively, define true knowledge? Is it knowing how people feel, what people think, or why people do things? Is it a perfect understanding of another's mannerisms or history? Is it any combination of the above, or is it all of them? "True knowledge" seems an inherently vague concept- which is odd, as it seems to imply utter clarity.
If we can't even truly know ourselves than I don't believe we can hope to truly know someone else especially when only interacting in a few controled settings.
I agree with what Bridget has to say. If you don't understand and know yourself then how could you possible understand another person. It's like the bible verse, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" That's what I thought of immediately. We shouldn't be able to truly know someone until we know ourselves. But we don't do that.
Magister P:
I strongly believe (and have much observational knowledge to prove)that the behavior of the individuals in TOK period 10 is distinct from how said individuals act elsewhere. This said, the knowledge learned solely in between the bells of period 10 is not sufficient to fully know the individuals. However, it makes sense to realize that for each aspect of life one puts on a different twist of one's character that fits the circumstances.
Noelle- I like your inclusion of the Bible verse; it's a nice comparison.
Post a Comment